I come to my support for nuclear power from the angle of energy security. As we are rapidly approaching an era where fossil fuel supplies (notably natural gas and petroleum products)
will not keep up with demand, especially with the growth in demand from China, India, et al, the fuel that keeps the wheel turning and the lights on for industrial economies is going to face volatile price movements, restrictions on supplies, outright
nationalization and
depletion.
Whether the peak in fossil fuel supplies is happening
now, or happens ten years from now, is really irrelevant considering
the long lead time needed to build up new sources of supply. In the case of liquid fuels, building up new sources of supply will be tough, as it will require major capital outlays in risky areas such as extreme deepwater, politically troubled regions or new technologies. New habits will be needed for those who rely on cheap fuel for personal transportation.
Electricity-based systems, such as
eletrified rail and
electric cars can provide a new path, though I doubt we'll ever see the kind of mass personal transporation that the U.S. saw from the 1930's through today. That era is over, the folks buying big houses in the exurbs just don't know it yet.
In my opinion, fringe sources for electricity such as
solar,
wind and
tidal power can help provide for peak load power and should be encouraged, but for those that want to be able to provide a steady supply of power at prices that most everyone can afford -
nuclear is the way to go. Yes, building up a new batch of nuclear plants will be expensive - but is it really all that more expensive compared to
new LNG facilites or retrofitting refineries to handle the sour crudes from oil shales, sands and tars?
Nuclear "waste" is a political issue, not a technical one. We could start building a
recycling plant tomorrow to handle the vast majority of the used fuel in the U.S.
A used fuel rod contains vast amounts of potential energy even after several cycles in a reactor. The way we do it now in the U.S., it's like filling your car's gas tank up, driving around until the gas gauge reads 3/4 full, going to an auto mechanic, having him remove the entire gas tank - with the gasoline still in it, welding on a new, empty tank and then finding a place to dispose of the 3/4 gas tank. Idiotic. As for the portions of the used fuel that we don't want to put back into new fuel, we can build
a fast reactor to burn the actinides up - 100% mass burnup of the waste forms. Solar can't even beat that - the
waste from silicon processing is nasty in the extreme and leaves behind a legacy of chemical waste for future generations.
Fine, you say. Nuclear looks good on paper (or you may still disagree, which is fine as well - just don't come bitching to me when the cities begin to go dark and your iPod or laptop gets
fried by dirty power) - but you may also point out that here at FutureJacked,
I have discussed what I regard as a coming shift in social attitudes and that this new cycle of negative mood, coupled with the empowering technology of the microchip could lead to
small groups being able to damage the continent-wide electricity supply grid that blankets North America. If the grid is so vulnerable, then why build big new plants?
Here I take a few themes from
John Robb's "
Brave New War" (which I reviewed
here) and use (or misuse it) for my own purposes. Mr. Robb points out that in a world where small groups can leverage tremendous violence for enormous "
returns on investment" for their acts, large complex systems are going to be very vulnerable in the coming decades. To insulate our communities, we must be able to build up resilient systems.
My take boils down to the development of a web of "nodes" that provide electricity for a region. We could focus on providing robust power sources for cities or even states. These grids would actually be platforms, where all users are encouraged to be both producers (solar, wind, whatever) and contribute to the grid (this would require more capital outlays for the interface, but resilience won't be cheap) as well as draw from it. There would be a keystone player, in this case nuclear or coal. We'd have to look into building either redundant power lines or getting extreme and putting
small nuclear plants in hardened facilities
inside cities.
Yes, I said it. But think for a second - if you could put ten small nuclear reactors of the 4S design spread throughout a city - with the various transmission lines buried and hardened, you make it much more difficult for globalguerrillas to target your infrastructure. Right now, as Mr. Robb pointed out in his book, in Iraq, all insurgents have to do to gauge electricity use is to count the number of smokestacks that are operational at a plant to know which unit is up and running. With nuclear plants that use water as a coolant, your cooling tower steam could be a marker, but if you are built inside a city, you can use the
process steam for heating or industrial uses.
Nuclear has another strong advantage and that is the fuel cycle. You don't have long lines of coal cars pulling up to your power station, disgorging tons of fuel every week or so. With nuclear, it is once every 18 or 24 months. The small,
battery-type reactors recently developed have projected fuel cycles on the order of decades. A big advantage in a world where infrastructure is going to be very vulnerable to disruption.
As to the worries about accidents, well, we can design you a hardened site, underground and do our best to mitigate the threat from missiles or planes. At the end of the day, though, you must balance your risks. Do you want to take the 1 in a billion chance of a nuclear accident or do you want a steady supply of power for your people and your civilization?
If our coming era of violence gets terribly extreme, you can
wall off your city, whittle down the insurgents to a manageable level and get medieval for awhile. Until the cycle turns back up.
Nuclear has many advantages in an era of expensive energy and fractured infrastructure. It's time will come, it just depends on how much pain we want to go through to get there.
Again, what markers to watch to look for this downturn in mood I expect, that will possibly provide the drive to move towards dispersed, small-scale nuclear?
- DJIA under 9,000
- Mortgage Loan "Crisis" extends to prime borrowers
- Federal Budget Crisis
- Major negative military event in Iraq
- Riots in L.A., Detroit, Houston and/or Atlanta